Thursday, May 09, 2013

The X-Files 20th Anniversary Blogging: "Irresistible" (January 13, 1995)



Chris Carter presents one of the darkest and most disturbing The X-Files episodes of the entire series catalog with his terrifying and relentless second season entry, “Irresistible.”

Leaving behind the expected “fantasy” elements of the series such as aliens and monsters-of-the-week, the series creator, aided by director David Nutter, instead provides here a glimpse of the ultimate and most fearsome mystery: human evil.

As a creative and intellectual series, The X-Files is a very Gothic enterprise. By and large, it concerns a voice of rationality and a voice of romance debating the inexplicable mysteries of nature and the supernatural itself.  “Irresistible” takes a determined step away from that approach by featuring a tale entirely psychological and human in its grounding.  The “monster” of “Irresistible” is not an imaginary being, a mutant, a spirit, or a monster but a twisted human being who “preys on the living to scavenge from the dead,” Donnie Pfaster (Nick Chinlund). 

Yet as the episode also reminds us through photographs (of Donnie as a child, in particular…) and canny imagery suggesting the killer’s sense of entrapment, Pfaster is merely a human being whose desire and needs have somehow -- for some reason -- grown exceedingly perverse, and dangerous.  The question is necessarily raised: how could someone come out so…wrong?  So twisted?

In this case, the truth isn’t “out there,” it’s part of who we are as a species.

In most installments, The X-Files ultimately reveals its monster fully, whether it be a fluke-man, a circus-freak, or some other “creature,” but “Irresistible” instead often frames Donnie in the shadows, so we can’t quite discern who or what he really is.  Sometimes, these shots of silhouettes are augmented with brief views of demons or devils, an indicator, perhaps, that some men are monsters inside.  At other times, this human "evil" seems to actually shape-shift.

This approach surely forecasts the brilliant Millennium (1996 – 1999), a series wherein the protagonist, Frank Black (Lance Henriksen),often sees men as monsters…beings turned ugly by their dark drives and desires.  It’s not too big a jump, then, to view  “Irresistible” as the sort of missing link between The X-Files and Millennium, the story that focuses not the on the monster outside, but the monster within.



In Minneapolis, a death fetishist named Donnie Pfaster (Nick Chinlund) is collecting the hair and fingernail clippings of female corpses…desecrating the bodies.  Mulder and Scully are brought in on the case by a local detective (Bruce Weitz), who suspects that UFOs are involved.  Mulder quickly discounts that notion, but warns that the killer could graduate to murder, a forecast which proves sadly accurate.

A shaken, disturbed Scully -- still vulnerable after recent events involving Duane Barry -- develops a profile for their sick perpetrator, but becomes an unwitting part of the case when Donnie Pfaster kidnaps her and plans to make the F.B.I. agent his next victim.




Proving as timely and as accurate as usual, this episode of The X-Files name-checks Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious serial killer in Ohio and Wisconsin who died in prison just weeks before “Irresistible” aired on network television.  

Dannie Pfaster is a character not unlike Dahmer: a man who can appear normal at a distance and to society at large…while close-up he is a dangerous predator.  

Both Dahmer and Pfaster, for instance, desecrate the bodies of dead, and show no remorse for their crimes.  And also like Dahmer, Pfaster seems to have come from a normal, middle-class American family.

There’s a scene in “Irresistible” during which Scully looks at Pfaster and he seems to shape-shift before her eyes, becoming a series of different men before "re-forming" as himself.  This visualization is not an indication of the supernatural as some have apparently taken it, but a subjective visual expression of Scully’s abject fear, and one also reported in the Dahmer case.  There, victims reported seeing Dahmer’s features change before their very eyes, and the only way to account for that change is absolute, unreasoning, existential fear.

The question raised by Dahmer and Pfaster is simply one of our human nature.  How could nature go so wrong that it would create these “escalating fetishists” who commit crimes of “almost unimaginable" brutality?

What makes “Irresistible” so successful an episode is this very factor.  The depiction of Donnie as a very sick person and one, ultimately, who can’t overcome his “bad” hard-wiring, is powerful, but also...dimensional.  Donnie’s desires and actions are wrong, anti-social and incredibly violent to be certain, yet he boasts no capacity to stop.  He is “programmed” wrong, if you will, and can't overcome that programming.  

This idea is visualized throughout the episodes in compositions that identify his entrapment.  Frequently, for instance, Donnie is seen behind bars, an acknowledgment both of entrapment and his ultimate destination prison.  There’s also a shot of Donnie Pfaster with a prostitute in which his usable space in the frame is bracketed or cut-off by her body and raised leg. He is, essentially, hemmed in, a victim of violent forces surging within that he can’t control or even truly understand.




What exactly are those violent forces? From what do they stem?  Why do they arise in some people but not others?  

“Irresistible” suggests that the answers to such questions are opaque, even un-answerable, also via Nutter's canny choice of compositions.  Again and again, Donnie is depicted in dark silhouette or shadow, his precise features undetectable.  

Shots of this nature recur even after the audience and main characters have seen Donnie’s visage already.  But the idea underlining such compositions is that psychology can’t explain the existence of “errors” like Donnie in the human race.  There’s some aspect of him that -- even when he faces us directly -- we can’t see, make-out, or understand. 


The figure in the shadows.

Donnie's real features -- and terrifying nature -- are undetectable in silhouette.

The dark shadow crosses Scully's space in the frame.
Although Scully and Mulder are closely involved in the week’s action, it doesn’t seem like any sort of slight to note that this episode belongs to Pfaster…and to Nick Chinlund.  

Chinlund is weird and creepy as the serial killer, but not in any kind of conventional or trite way.  He has a soft, raspy voice, and moves his neck and head in a bird-like, strange fashion which suggests he is both simultaneously human and not fully human.  At times Pfaster seems almost gentle, and at other times he is ruthless and single-minded.  His absolutely unsettling and non-traditional performance anchors the episode, and makes Pfaster one of the series’ great “monsters.”  The character would return in a seventh season episode called “Orison,” but he is most creepy on this encounter, in “Irresistible.”  

In particular, there is an absolutely sickening, perfectly-pitched scene here in which Pfaster begins digging through a bathroom garbage can for discarded fingernail clippings and hair.  The scene feels incredibly perverse, and Donnie expresses avarice, desire, and satisfaction when he finally extracts a clump of tangled hair from the receptacle.  There's something so desperate about his ardent desire here.  It's a credit to Chinlund's performance and Chris Carter's sterling writing that a man who does such horrible things can be portrayed in a multi-faceted way.





In terms of the established dramatis personae, “Irresistible” is a Scully episode.  The episode moves in a familiar epistolary form  (like the pilot episode) with Scully reporting her profile of Pfaster in voice-over, and typing out reports on her computer.  In terms of her character, the audience learns in this episode that Scully desires to be seen by Mulder as an equal, and that she finds it upsetting (humiliating?) that he feels the need to protect her.  

Secondly, of course, this is our first opportunity to see Scully back in action after the shattering events of “Duane Barry/Ascension/One Breath.”  It’s fair to say she undergoes something akin to PTSD here, but in the end she overcomes it, and battles Pfaster to a stand-still.



The coda of “Irresistible” is also just about perfect.  As Scully makes her final case report on Pfaster, the episode cuts to those haunting childhood pictures of Pfaster.  His family looks perfectly normal.  Young Danny is well-dressed and well-coiffed.  Everyone is smiling. But something inside Donnie is wrong, even as a child, and the fact that it goes undetected by even his closest family is terrifying.  How many other Donnie Pfasters are out there, victims of twisted desires beyond their control?  The episode leaves us with that question hanging in the air, unresolved.

Next week is the Star Trek Week celebration here on the blog, so our X-Files retrospective will resume in two weeks, on Thursday, May 23rd, with another real humdinger of a show: “Die Hand der Verletzt.”

14 comments:

  1. Another great piece, John! Certainly a must-have in your retrospective, I would agree. I particularly like how you highlight the visualisation of Pfaster's entrapment throughout. Plus, of course, as you note the episode has much to offer on that ongoing debate as to the nature of evil. Chilling and thought-provoking stuff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Adam!

      "Irresistible" is one of those must-see X-Files, in my opinion, and probably one of the top ten or fifteen titles. It is a really creepy show, and beautifully rendered on film.

      Delete
  2. This kind of episode was exactly what I thought Chris Carter created "Millennium" for. To explore the nature of man and evil within the context of reality and without having to push forward a mythology arc. To free Carter up, so to speak. And I think he accomplished that in MM's first season. For me, when Carter stepped out of the picture, seasons two and three went off the rails and into "The X-Files" territory of the supernatural, the unreal, and the dreaded mythology arc. It's not surprising that he couldn't keep two shows going. It happens all too frequently in television when creators try to start up a new idea without wrapping up the old one. David E. Kelley comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Terri,

      Thanks for a great comment.

      Millennium definitely followed "Irresistible" in terms of exploring the darker side of humanity.

      I feel Millennium still works remarkably well -- all three seasons, actually -- because this focus on humanity is never entirely sacrificed.

      Some later episodes do travel to more offbeat territory, but ultimately redeem themselves, I think, for what they say about us as a species, particularly our obsession with various doomsday theology and beliefs.

      As we see today with all the conspiracy mongers, there is no shortage of nutty ideas out there, and Millennium -- in addition to exploring serial killers -- gazes at our beliefs about the end, about our destruction. By necessity, some of those episodes are going to be strange, because so much conspiracy theory is, indeed, strange.

      Honestly, I never felt that Chris Carter stretched himself too thin in the X-Files/Millennium era. I look at The X-Files and Millennium as two highly-artistic, highly-symbolic series that each created dozens (if not hundreds, when added together) genre masterpieces.

      For instance, I have found no shortage of great X-Files to write about for this retrospective, and I'm still only early in the second season. I should really pick an episode that is terrible, but I haven't been able to find one yet...

      I feel that when I write a Millennium retrospective in 1996, I'll be facing the same issue. I will want to review the vast majority of the episodes, because by and large, they are so strong.

      All my best,
      John

      Delete
    2. That fascination with doomsday scenarios—millennialism, in its true sense—is a fascinating topic to me. I was in dialogue with a social psychologist from the University of Kent a month or so back, after an event at the Natural History Museum in London that discussed the apocalypse, and at which he was a guest speaker. He recommended "Heaven on Earth" by Richard Landes, which I am reading now and is an excellent volume.

      Additionally, he is working on a volume of his own that seeks to explore the psychology that belies such beliefs, and—after a little nudge in the right direction from me!—has vouched to pick up Millennium on DVD, as well as a copy of "Back to Frank Black", as part of his research into the subject. I'm biased, but I think it's a great place to start!

      Delete
    3. Adam,

      I think Millennium has such a great thematic dynamic.

      First, it's a marvel to see what humans will choose to believe in sometimes (like Y2K, or the Second Great Flood)...often with the flimsiest of evidence.

      But secondly, it's even more fascinating to see man's obsession with his own end or destruction.

      This raises the question: what can a person be capable of if he or she decides that there is no future, and therefore no reason to be part of a community, or to obey laws?

      I think Millennium really explores that conundrum brilliantly, even in some of the more off-beat episodes of the second and third season, which are less-grounded in our everyday reality.

      I want to check out the volume you mentioned, "Heaven on Earth." Sounds like some very interesting reading...

      best,
      John

      Delete
    4. It's certainly a great book, and covers considerable ground. I'm with you in terms of being fascinated by the topic. (In fact, it's the one area I wish our book delved into yet further—although we do cover a lot of ground as it is!) You'll find a write-up of the event I attended on the Fourth Horseman Press blog if you're interested, and it touches upon terms such as "immanent justice reasoning", a tendency towards a belief in a moral universe that punishes us for our collective misdeeds. You're right—Millennium explores such topics throughout its run in an entirely unique and masterful way.

      Delete
    5. Hi Adam,

      I will check out the blog, and read more! Sounds like it is right up my alley.

      Regarding the book, I am amazed and impressed by the depth of coverage it offers. It's an excellent piece that explains so well why Millennium has meant so much to so many, and resonated so strongly for over a decade.

      Best,
      John

      Delete
    6. I liked the various doomsday scenarios that "Millennium" first covered. Like "The X-Files" and its delve into all of the different urban legends, I liked learning about the various apocalyptic theories I had never heard of. Again, though, I thought that was abandoned after season one. Basically, after completely hooking me with season one, seasons 2 and 3 were not the Millennium (nor the Frank Black) that I was looking for. ;-) But as you said, the show in its entirety has many, many fans, as does Mr. Henriksen. My absence will not create any voids. :-P

      Delete
    7. Hi Terri!

      You make a crucial point about preferences. We all have them, vis-a-vis Millennium, or anything else for that matter.

      When I watched Millennium originally, for instance, I found it too bleak and "serial killer of the week" at first.

      After about six weeks -- to my shame -- I bailed.

      I came back for the second season, which was more fantasy-oriented, to some extent, and became hooked for the first time.

      Then, I went back and watched the first season again...and was able to detect for the first time its total and uncompromising brilliance. I can't believe I missed it on my initial viewing!

      In this way, I've developed a fondness for Millennium in all its storytelling formats. I am even a defender of the third season, which I think tries to balance the approaches of the first two seasons...often successfully.

      But I completely understand and appreciate your point.

      I am also an ardent admirer of The Twilight Zone, but almost never watch the fourth season, hour-long episodes.

      For me, TZ is perfect at a half-hour, and an hour only kind of muddies the storytelling style. That said, there are some good shows (like "Death Ship") in that fourth season, but they feel more like Outer Limits than the Twilight Zone...


      best,
      John

      Delete
  3. Another great examination of a classic episode. This one is one of my favorites as well, and certainly one of the best episodes of this season. The use of shadows in this episode is so effective, it really adds the disturbing nature of Donnie.

    I will say that the morphing of Donnie into monsters or other people still seems unnecessary. It doesn't ruin the episode or anything, but it does add a bit of confusion to the whole thing. Because we are watching the "X-files" and we've seen creatures that can change shape and appearance previously, these moments hint at the supernatural when clearly there isn't anything supernatural going on. It actually deflates the power of the episode and dilutes the theme a bit.

    Your explanation of how this ties back to Dahmer makes perfect sense, so now I see what they were attempting. But I still think it was a misstep in a top notch episode. Again, not a game changer but something I wish they had avoided. With anyone else I would have wondered if the creators didn't trust the audience to realize that Donnie was a real monster.

    Looking forward to your next review. That episode is a blast!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Roman,

      "Irresistible" is such a powerful (and disturbing) episode, and it has one that stayed with me since the original airing in 1995.

      You raise an interesting point about the morphing technique, and Jez adds another viewpoint below.

      I think the idea certainly has validity because of the Dahmer connection, and what the morphing portends, but I do agree that it caused some people to think that Donnie is an "actual" demon and not just a very messed up human being.

      Very intriguing...

      Delete
  4. In response to Roman's comment above, I think the 'morphing' of Donnie's face is necessary and if anything is the key to the whole episode. I don't think it's intended to mislead, rather I think it makes a very salient point about why we believe in monsters and aliens in the first place. It reminds us that all monsters, including those featured on The X-Files, are products of the human mind. Our imagination and our reactions to fear are what make shows like The X-Files possible. I don't believe that the intention with the morphing was to blur the line between natural and supernatural, but I absolutely believe that there was intent to blur the line between a natural 'monster' and a supernatural 'monster'. It makes it crystal clear that Donnie is as much a 'monster' to Scully as anything else she has seen.

    Donnie as a character actually reminds me an awful lot of Francis Dollarhyde in Manhunter, though his collecting of female body parts sounds more like Ed Gein. I think Donnie is meant to be the ultimate bogeyman, a Frankenstein built by our minds from pop-culture and serial killers we all know.

    On a slight tangent, that scene always reminds me of Jacob's Ladder and the numerous scenes in that movie where people morph into demons. The fear of hidden evil lurking in your neighbour.

    "If you're frightened of dying, and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. If you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the Earth."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jez,

      I really like how you see the morphing technique as used in "Irresistible" and think it is a brilliant conceit. The problem, it seems, is that some percentage of viewers didn't get it, and mistook "Irresistible" as saying that Donnie is actually a demon.

      But I think the idea is sound, and even genius. It adds potently to "the fear of hidden evil lurking in your neighbour," just as you tag it.

      I agree with your assertion that Donnie is "the ultimate bogeyman" a kind of amalgamation of all the worst serial killers. He's very frightening.

      best,
      John

      Delete

60 Years Ago: Goldfinger (1964) and the Perfect Bond Movie Model

Unlike many film critics, I do not count  Goldfinger  (1964) as the absolute “best” James Bond film of all-time. You can check out my rankin...